African Crop Science Journal by African Crop Science Society Is Licensed Under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Uganda License

African Crop Science Journal by African Crop Science Society is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Uganda License. Based on a work at www.ajol.info/ and www.bioline.org.br/cs DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/acsj.v27i2.5

POTENTIAL FOR YIELD LOSS REDUCTION AND PROFITABILITY ASSESSMENT OF PESTICIDE CONTROL OF GROUNDNUT LEAF MINER AMONG SOYBEAN GENOTYPES

M. NAMARA, J. KARUNGI, R. EDEMA, P. GIBSON and P. TUKAMUHABWA

Department of Agricultural Production, School of Agricultural sciences, Makerere University, P. O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda Corresponding author: [email protected]

(Received 18 November 2016; accepted 13 May 2019)

ABSTRACT

Groundnut leaf miner (GLM) is currently a threat to soybean production in Uganda due to the great yield losses as a result of the severe damage it causes on leaves leading to reduced photosynthetic area. GLM is a fairly new pest on soybean in Uganda, having initially been observed in soybean fields in 2011 in eastern Uganda. The objective of this study was to determine the yield loss caused by the groundnut leaf miner and effectiveness and profitability of commonly used pesticides for the control of the groundnut leaf miner (Aproaerema modicella Deventer) (GLM), when tested with popular soybean (Glycine max) genotypes grown in Uganda. In a split plot RCBD design, pesticide protection (treated vs. untreated) formed the main plots; and six commercial soybean varieties (Maksoy 1N, 2N, 3N, 4N, 5N; and Namsoy 4M) as subplots. The study was done in two locations in eastern Uganda (Iki Iki District Agricultural Training and Information Centre (Iki Iki DATIC) and National Semi-Arid Resources Research Institute, Serere (NaSARRI) with two planting rounds at Iki Iki. These sites were chosen because they are hot spots for GLM. GLM severity and soybean yield were significantly affected by the pesticide protection. Overall, percentage grain yield losses caused by GLM on the different soybean varieties ranged from 37.3% to 65.7% and the highest loss was displayed by Maksoy 5N. Grain yield loss recorded at Iki Iki DATIC (53.1%) was remarkably higher than that recorded at the NaSARRI (49.1%). Economic analysis showed marginal returns to be dependent on location, with the Iki Iki DATIC having 0.6 and NaSARRI 1.1. This study has shown that the groundnut leaf miner, a recently emergent pest of soybean is becoming a big threat to soybean production and that chemical control alone may not be economical in managing the pest.

Key Words: Aproaerema modicella, Glycine max, marginal returns, Uganda

RÉSUMÉ

La mineuse de feuilles d’arachide (MFA) constitue actuellement une menace pour la production de soja en Ouganda en raison des pertes de rendement considérables dues aux dégâts importants causés aux feuilles, ce qui a entraîné une réduction de la surface photosynthétique. Le MFA est un ravageur 184 M. NAMARA et al. relativement nouveau sur le soja en Ouganda. Il avait d’abord été observé dans des champs de soja en 2011 dans l’est de l’Ouganda. L’objectif de cette étude était de déterminer la perte de rendement causée par la mineuse de feuilles d’arachide et l’efficacité et la rentabilité des pesticides couramment utilisés pour lutter contre la mineuse de feuilles d’arachide (Aproaerema modicella Deventer) (MFA), lorsqu’il était testé avec du soja très répandu (Glycine max ) génotypes cultivés en Ouganda. L’essai a été installé suivant un dispositif split plot en parcelles divisées, la protection antiparasitaire (traitée ou non traitée) constituait les parcelles principales; et six variétés commerciales de soja (Maksoy 1N, 2N, 3N, 4N, 5N; et Namsoy 4M) en sous-parcelles. L’étude a été réalisée dans deux regions de l’est de l’Ouganda (Centre de formation et d’information agricoles du district d’Iki Iki (Iki Iki DATIC) et Institut national de recherche sur les ressources semi-arides de Serere (NaSARRI), avec deux fois de plantation à Iki Iki. Ces sites ont été choisis parceque ce sont des regions très menaces par MFA. La protection contre les pesticides a eu un effet important sur la sévérité du MFA et le rendement du soja. Generalement, le pourcentage de pertes de rendement en grain causées par la sur les différentes variétés de soja variait de 37,3% à 65,7% et la perte la plus élevée a été montrée par Maksoy 5N. La perte de rendement en grains trouvée à Iki Iki DATIC (53,1%) était remarquablement supérieure à celle trouvée à NaSARRI (49,1%). L’analyse économique a montré que les rendements marginaux dépendaient de la localisation, l’Iki Iki DATIC étant à 0,6 et NaSARRI à 1,1. Une étude a montré que la mineuse de feuilles d’arachide, un ravageur du soja récemment apparu, constituait une menace majeure pour la production de soja et que la lutte chimique à elle seule pouvait ne pas être rentable pour lutter contre ce ravageur.

Mots Clés: Aproaerema modicella, Glycine max, rendements marginaux, Ouganda

INTRODUCTION groundnuts, with yield increases of about 60% (Cugala et al., 2010; Praveen et al., 2011a). Soybean (Glycine max) is a crop that is grown With its recent invasion and increasing worldwide (FAO, 2015).The crop is valued devastation of soybean, it is imperative that for being highly nutritious, with about 40% an independent evaluation of the most protein and 20% oil, that are key for human successful pesticide candidates of GLM in and animal nutrition (Gibson and Garren, 2005; groundnuts, is done to establish their effective IITA, 2009; Qiu and Chang, 2010). Despite and profitability on soybean. Knowledge on its growing importance in Uganda, soybean the extent of damage on different soybean production is currently under a threat caused genotypes will also guide the breeding by the groundnut leaf miner (GLM), programme on the resource requirements. The Aproarema modicella Deventer (Lepidoptera: objective of this study, therefore, was to Gelechiidae), a pest that hitherto has been determine yield losses caused by the incognito in soybean production. The pest is groundnut leaf miner and the effectiveness and especially prevalent in the second growing profitability of commonly used pesticide for season (August-December) in eastern Uganda the control of GLM in groundnuts, when tested (Okello, et al., 2013). with popular soybean genotypes grown in The leaf miner causes yield losses ranging Uganda. from 50 to 100% on groundnut (Kenis and Cugala, 2006; Cugala et al., 2010); and at MATERIALS AND METHODS empirically unknown levels in soybean, owing to lack of coordinated research on this pest. Six locally bred commercial soybean varieties, Emphasis in management of the pest has been Namsoy 4M, Maksoy 1N, Maksoy 2N, placed on chemical control, which has been Maksoy 3N, Maksoy 4N and Maksoy 5N were found variably effectiveness against GLM in used in this study. The study was conducted Pesticide control of groundnut leaf miner among soybean genotypes 185 in season 2013B (since the pest only occurs during morning hours (7:00-9:00 am), using a in the second season), in two locations in knapsack sprayer. eastern Uganda namely, Iki Iki District The soybean varieties (Maksoy 1N, 2N, Agricultural Training and Information Centre, 3N, 4N, 5N and Namsoy 4M) were planted at Budaka district; and the National Semi-Arid a spacing of 60 cm between rows and 5 cm Resources Research Institute (NaSARRI) in within rows. Each plot had 4 rows measuring Serere district. These locations are renowned 5 m. The plots were separated by paths of 1 hotspots for GLM (Personal communication, m apart and 1.8 m between the main plots. Prof. Phinehas Tukamuhabwa, Makerere The experiment was hand hoe weeded twice, University, 2013). in each of the locations, first at 3 weeks and then at 6 weeks after planting. The experiment Site description. Iki Iki DATIC is located at was implemented in the field under natural 1o06’N-34o00’E at an altitude of 1,156 meters infestation. above sea level and receives mean annual rainfall and temperature of 1,200 mm and GLM severity. Severity of damage caused by 24.7oC, respectively; whereas NaSARRI is GLM was recorded using a scale of 1-5; where located at 1o31’N-33o27’E at an altitude of 1 = no damage, 2 = 1-20% leaf damage, 3 = 1,139 meters above sea level, and receives 21-40% leaf damage, 4 = 41-60% leaf damage mean annual rainfall and temperature of 1,972 and 5= 61-100% leaf damage (Praveen, et al., mm and 24oC, respectively. Since the pest only 2011b). Data on GLM severity were recorded occurs in the second growing season, the study from 40 days after planting and continued at was repeated by staggered planting in Iki Iki an interval of 14 days for 4 consecutive times where the first planting was done on the 2nd of (Ramani and Lingappa, 1988). Grain yield September 2013 and the second planting on losses from the leaf miner were estimated as the 10th of October 2013. The NaSARRI site the difference between grain yields from was also planted on the latter planting date. protected plots and the grain yields from unprotected plots, expressed as a percentage. Experimental design and treatments. The Data were subjected to analysis of variance study was laid out in a randomised complete using GenStat 14th Edition, computer package, block design, in a split plot arrangement, with and means were separated using Fisher’s the pesticide regime in the main plots, and the Protected Least Significant Difference (LSD) soybean varieties in the sub-plots. Treatments test at 5% probability level. were replicated three times. Two main treatment levels were used: protected Profitability assessment. Cost-benefit (sprayed), versus unprotected (unsprayed). analysis was used to calculate the marginal Spraying of the protected plots was done using returns (profitability) of the pesticides used, a tank mixture of cypermethrin (Cyperlacer following procedures of Alghali (1992a) and 5EC), a contact insecticide, and dimethoate as applied by Karungi et.al. (2000) and Nabirye (Tafgor 40EC), a systemic (which are et.al. (2003) ( Table 1). Cost of chemical spray recommended chemicals for controlling leaf was estimated as one litre for dimethoate and miner on groundnut) so as to completely half a litre for cypermethrin per hectare for eliminate the leaf miner (Karungi et al., 2000; each spray (Table 1); whereas marginal returns Nabirye et al., 2003). Spraying started 14 days were computed as a ratio of the extra yield after planting (DAP), the time when the leaf value obtained from spraying to the additional miner was first observed in the field; and cost of the spraying with pesticide (Table 2). continued once a week up to crop Marginal returns indicate the value of the yield physiological maturity. Spraying was done gained from spraying in relation to the cost of 186 M. NAMARA et al. TABLE 1. Costs of pesticide application used in calculation of marginal returns

No. of sprays Item Cost

1 Pesticidea 54,000 Labour for sprayingb 60,000 Labour harvesting and threshing additional grain 40,000

Total cost 154,000

5 Additional pesticide 216,000 Labour for 4 more sprays 240,000 Labour harvesting and threshingc additional graind 160,000 Total cost for one spray 154,000

Total cost 770,000

7 Additional pesticide 324,000 Labour for 6 more sprays 360,000 Labour harvesting and threshingc additional graind 240,000 Total cost for one spray 154,000

Total cost 1,078,000

Adopted from Karungi et al. (2000) aPesticide application rate was estimated at 1 litre per hectare bLabour calculated at 1 man-day per ha (this covered knapsack sprayer hire) cLabour for harvesting and threshing estimated/ha dValue of soybean at the time of research at 1500 Ug. Shs. kg-1, 1 US$ = 3500 Ug. Shs.

TABLE 2. F statistics for GLM severity across the two locations at four sampling dates

Source of variation d.f. 40 DAP 54 DAP 68 DAP 82 DAP

Location 1 0.1 0.1 1.3 1.0 Reps/ location 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Treatment 1 2332** 2409** 176.4* 340.7* Location x treatment 1 0.1 0.1 1.4 1.0 Genotype 5 1.7 1.3 1.0 1.0 Location x genotype 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Treatment x genotype 5 1.7 1.3 1.0 1.0 Location x treatment x genotype 5 0.5 1.8 1.7 1.0

Values marked ** and * are significantly different at 0.01 and 0.05 probability level, respectively All interactions with location were not significant Pesticide control of groundnut leaf miner among soybean genotypes 187 the spray schedule. A marginal return value also had no significant effect on GLM severity less than one indicates that the increase in (P>0.05) (Table 2). soybean yield does not compensate for the cost of spraying (Karungi et al., 2000). The costs Grain yield. Pesticide protection and location associated with the spray regime used are had a highly significant effect (P<0.001) on shown in Table 1. soybean grain yield (Tables 4 and 5). The interactions between pesticide protection and RESULTS genotype; location, chemical protection and genotype had no significant effect on grain GLM severity. There was a significant effect yield (P >0.05) (Table 4). Lack of pesticide of pesticide protection for consistency on administration caused grain yield losses in the GLM severity at all sampling dates (P<0.01) order of 53.1 and 49.1%, at Iki Iki DATIC (Table 2, Fig. 1). Soybean plants in the and NaSARRI, respectively (Table 4). pesticide-sprayed plots had a mean severity Pesticide administration increased yield by score of 1.0, whereas those in the unsprayed 252 and 390 kg ha-1 at Iki Iki DATIC and plots had a mean severity score of 4.2 (Fig. NaSARRI, respectively (Table 6). There was 1). The severity of GLM in the unsprayed plots an interaction effect of pesticide application increased significantly from 2.9 at 40 DAP to and location of the study, on soybean grain 4.3 at 54 DAP. The GLM severity score at 68 yield (P<0.01). Genotypic differences had no DAP and 82 DAP was 4.4 and 4.6, respectively significant effect on grain yield; neither did (Fig. 1). The interactions between the pesticide the interaction between chemical protection treatments and genotypes; location, pesticide and genotype (P>0.05). Yields were in the treatment and genotype did not significantly range of 354 kg ha-1 in Maksoy 5N to 520 kg affect GLM severity (P >0.05). Study location ha-1 in Namsoy 4M.

20 Mean GLM severity

00 40 DAP 54 DAP 68 DAP 72 DAP Sampling dates Unprotected Protected Figure 1. GLM severity means of protected vs. unprotected plots across locations for the four sampling dates (DAP = Days after planting). Severity scale 1-5; where 1 = immune (no damage); 5 = highly susceptible (61 - 100% damage). 188 M. NAMARA et al. TABLE 3. F statistics for effect of planting round on yield and GLM severity at the four sampling dates

Source of variation d.f. Yield 40 DAP 54 DAP 68 DAP 82 DAP

Planting round 1 2.2 0.01 2.4 1.5 1.0 Treatment 1 118.3 30132.4* 186.4* 167* 349.6* Planting round x treatment 1 2.3 0.01 0.2 1.5 1.0 Genotype 5 1.3 3.6 2.9 1.3 1.0 Planting round x genotype 5 1.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 Treatment x genotype 5 2.2 3.6 2.9 1.3 1.0 Planting round x treatment x genotype 5 0.6 0.3 1.3 1.5 1.0

Planting dates and all interactions with planting date were not significant

TABLE 4. F statistics for yield for treatments and varieties across locations

Source of variation d.f. Yield

Location 1 341.5*** Rep/ location 4 0.54 Treatment 1 224.5*** Location x treatment 1 10.3** Genotype 5 2.6 Location x genotype 5 3.3 Treatment x genotype 5 1.8 Location x treatment x genotype 5 0.5

MS- mean square; Values marked *, **, *** are significantly different at 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 probability level respectively. All interactions with entry were not significant

Marginal returns. Marginal returns from or Monocrotophos 36 SL could be used as pesticide protection at Iki Iki DATIC and alternatives (Umesh and Krishna, 1996). The NaSARRI were in the order of 0.6 and 1.1, high GLM severity scores (>60% leaf damage) respectively (Table 6). in unprotected plots is evidence that GLM can cause serious damage to soybean if left DISCUSSION uncontrolled (Table 7). This damage caused in photosynthetic tissue reduces the surface GLM severity. Spraying with a tank mixture area for light interception decreasing crop of cypermethrin and dimethoate was effective growth rate, photosynthetic partitioning and in controlling the GLM as severity was ultimately results in yield loss (Du Plessis, maintained at 1.0 (0% leaf damage) as opposed 2003; Kenis and Cugala, 2006) especially as it to the high severity of GLM in the unprotected happens early in the growth cycle (14 DAP). plots (Table 7). However, since dimethoate use The non-significant location and genotype is being discontinued in Uganda, other effect for GLM severity indicated that GLM systemic pesticides such as Chlorpyrifos 20EC severity was neither determined by the Pesticide control of groundnut leaf miner among soybean genotypes 189 TABLE 5. Mean yield (Kg ha-1) from the protected (sprayed) versus unprotected (unsprayed) plots between varieties and within each of the locations

Variety Iki Iki Serere Overall mean Percentage yield (kg ha-1) yield loss Prot Unprot Prot Unprot

Maksoy 1N 406 144 618 407 394 47.7 Maksoy 2N 327 124 998 438 472 57.4 Maksoy 3N 395 186 769 516 466 40.6 Namsoy 4M 408 273 864 534 520 37.3 Maksoy 4N 594 152 822 333 475 57.6 Maksoy 5N 435 173 657 160 354 65.7

Mean 427.5 175.3 788.0 398.0 447.2 51.0 LSD (0.05) 162.2 95.8 254.1 250.8 219.6

LSD is least significance difference for varieties down column at 5% probability level; Prot = Protected

TABLE 6. Mean grain yields and marginal returns for the protected vs. unprotected for the two locations

Location Spray schedule Marketable Yield gain Value of Cost of Marginal yield (kg ha-1) over control yield gain spray returns from sprayed (US $) (MR) (US $) (V) (CP)

Iki Iki No pesticide 175.3 Sprayed (7times) 427.5 252 183.2 308 0.6

LSD (0.05) 57.3

Serere No pesticide 398.0 Sprayed (7times) 788.0 390 337.7 308 1.1

LSD (0.05) 117.2

LSD = Least significance difference; Marginal returns = V/CP; MR less than 1 are not profitable: 1 US$ = 3500Ug. Shs. variations in the locations nor genotypes. This increase in maximum temperature and decrease implies that the two locations (Iki Iki and in relative humidity, rainfall and leaf wetness. NaSARRI) had similar prevailing weather This also explains the non-significant effect conditions (not recorded) since Arunachalam of planting round on GLM severity at Iki Iki. and Kavitha (2012) reported leaf miner incidence in groundnut is mainly influenced Grain yield. The study also showed that all by the prevailing weather factors, with the tested commercial soybean varieties are maximum incidence observed with the prone to damage by the GLM as grain yield 190 M. NAMARA et al. TABLE 7. Mean GLM severity at various scoring dates for the two locations

GLM severity

40 DAP 54 DAP 68 DAP 82 DAP

Iki Iki No pesticide 2.9 4.3 4.4 4.6 Sprayed 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Serere No pesticide 2.8 4.5 4.9 5.0 Sprayed 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Average No pesticide 2.9 4.4 4.6 4.8 Sprayed 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Severity scale 1-5; where 1 = immune (no damage); 5 = highly susceptible (61%-100% damage); DAP = Days after planting losses from the unprotected plots ranged from and Krishna (1996) recorded highest yield and 37 to 66%. Moreover, this level of loss is a gross profit when two sprays were applied to threat to the status of soybean production as control GLM on soybean at 30 DAP and 45 a commercial venture in Uganda. In fact, DAP. Also, efforts can be put in combining growers in Mozambique are reported to have pesticide usage with other cultural practices abandoned ground nut production due to GLM that boost plant growth for example; (Cugala et al., 2010). It is imperative to intercropping with cereal crops such as intervene in Uganda to avoid such a scenario sorghum, and maize or trap crops such as on soybean, a crop that brings in about US$342 pearl millet and cowpea which was found to earnings per hectare (Tukamuhabwa and reduce infestation of GLM and increase yield Obua, 2015). As such, effective management in groundnut (Rajagopal and strategies for GLM are critical for continued Hanumanthaswamy, 2000; Okello et al., and profitable production of soybean and by 2016). Also manipulation of plant population inference groundnuts in the country. was found to reduce infestation of the pest in groundnut in Tamil, Nadu India (Logiswaran Marginal returns. Results on economic and Mohanasundaram 1985). These methods analysis of chemical control of GLM showed could be integrated with reduced chemical that the NaSARRI site produced positive applications to promote cost-effectiveness. returns (1.1); whereas the Iki Iki DATIC site did not (0.6), implying that the value of yield CONCLUSION gains from spraying at Iki Iki were low compared to NaSARRI. This is very evident The groundnut leaf miner caused grain yield from the low yields recorded at Iki Iki losses ranging from 35-66% in commercial compared to the higher yields recorded at soybean varieties in Uganda. All the NaSARRI (Table 5). At Iki Iki, the yield commercial soybean varieties sustained realised could not justify use of the chemical. appreciable GLM damage with Maksoy 5N Intervention could be in form of better timing sustaining the highest yield loss. of the spraying since the results show the pest Chemical control though successful in comes in much earlier than expected. Umesh controlling infestation of GLM was not always Pesticide control of groundnut leaf miner among soybean genotypes 191 profitable and therefore needs to be integrated Karungi, J., Adipala, E., Kyamanywa, S. and with other groundnut leaf miner control Ogenga-Latigo. 2000. Pest management in strategies for leaf miner control. cowpea. Part 2. Integrating planting time, plant density and insecticide application for ACKNOWLEDGEMENT management of cowpea insect pests in eastern Uganda. Crop Protection 19:237- This study was supported by the Alliance for 245. a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and Kenis, M. and Cugala, D. 2006. Prospects for Makerere University Centre for Soybean the biological control of the groundnut leaf Improvement and Development. miner, Aproaerema modicella, in Africa. Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary REFERENCES Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 1(032):1-9. Alghali, A.M. 1992a. On-farm evaluation of Logiswaran, G. and Mohanasundaram, M., control strategies for insect pests in cowpea 1985. Effect of intercropping, spacing and with emphasis on flower thrips, mulching in the control of groundnut leaf Megalurothrips sjostedti Trybom miner, Aproaerema modicella. Madras (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Tropical Pest Agricultural Journal 72:695-700. Management 38:420-424. Nabirye, J., Namapala, P., Ogenga-Latigo, Arunachalam, P. and Kavitha, Z. 2012. M.W., Kyamanywa, S., Wilson, H., Odeke, Response of groundnut genotypes to leaf V., Iceduna, C. and Adipala, E. 2003. miner (Aproaerema modicella Deventer) Farmer-participatory evaluation of cowpea under field screening. IOSR Journal of integrated pest management (IPM) Agriculture and Veterinary Science 1(2):20- technologies in eastern Uganda. Crop 23. Protection 22:31-38. Cugala, D., Santos, L., Botao, M. Solomone, Okello, D. K., Monyo, E., Deom, C.M., A. and Sidumo, A. 2010. Assessment of Ininda, J. and Oloka, H.K. 2013. groundnut yield loss due to the groundnut Groundnut production guide for Uganda: leaf miner, Aproaerema modicella Recommended practices for farmers. infestation in Mozambique. African Crop National Agricultural Research Science Conference Proceedings. pp. 319- Organisation. Entebbe, Uganda. 324. Okello, D.K., Biruma, M., Ugen, M.A., Du Plessis, H. 2003. First report of groundnut Wandulu, J.A., Anguria, P., Gayi, D., Osia, leafminer, Aproaerema modicella P., Ereu, S.O., Muniappan, R. and Deom, (Deventer) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) on C.M. 2016. Groundnut Leafminer groundnut, soybean and lucerne in South Factsheet. A NaSARRI-PMIL Publication. Africa. South African Journal of Plant and Praveen, Y.V., Kotikal, Y.B., Kumar, R. and soil 20:1-48. Vijaykumar, G. 2011a. Bioefficacy of newer FAO, 2015. FAOSTAT. http://www.faostat3. insecticides against Groundnut leaf miner, fao.org. Accessed 01 May 2015. Aproaerema modicella Deventer in Gibson, L. and Garren, B. 2005. Origin, northern dry zone of Karnataka. Resistant history and uses of soybean (Glycine max). pest management News Letter 20(2):18-22. http://www.agron.iastate.edu. Accessed 16 Praveen, Y.V., Kotikal, Y.K., Awaknavar, J.S. March 2014. and Kenchangoudar, P.V. 2011b. Screening International Institute of Tropical Agriculture of groundnut varieties against leaf miner, (IITA). 2009. Soybean (Glycine max). Aproaerema modicella Deventer. http://www.iita.org. Accessed 20 March Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2014. 24(4):561-563. 192 M. NAMARA et al. Qiu, L.J. and Chang, R.Z. 2010. The origin miner, Aproaerema modicella (Deventer) and history of soybean. In: Singh. G. (Ed.) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Karnakata The soybean: Botany, production and uses. Journal of Agricultural Science 2(12):76- pp 1-23. CABI. 81. Rajagopal , D. and Hanumanthaswamy, B.C. Tukamuhabwa, P. and Obua, T. 2015. Soybean 2000. Effect of intercropping on the production guide in Uganda incidence of groundnut leaf miner, Umesh, N. and Krishna, L.N. 1996. Evaluation Aproaerema modicella Deventer of insecticides for the control of Leafminer (Gelechiidae : Lepidoptera). Madras Aproaerema modicella Deventer Agricultural Journal 86(9):461-464. (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) on soybeans. Ramani, S. and Lingappa, S. 1988. Evaluation Karnakata Journal of Agricultural Sciences of soybean germplasm for resistance to leaf 9(4):622-626.